Mudslinging, name-calling, accusations and counterattacks.
Sounds like a bad way to run a marketing campaign-particularly
during a presidential race-but all those negative ads may have a
more positive result than you think. What many of us call
"negative" or "attack" ads are termed
"comparative" ads by those in the industry, and the
bottom line is that they appear to work.

"They're very effective," says Rick Farmer, Ph.D.,
an assistant professor of political science at the University of
Akron in Akron, Ohio, who has studied the impact of comparative
ads. Farmer, other researchers and campaign consultants agree that
negative ads are more memorable than positive ones, provided they
reinforce a belief and remain relevant to the central issues of the
marketing campaign. In political campaigns, comparative ads work
because "people have a cynical view of politics and tend to
believe the negative very quickly," says Farmer.

Though many Americans say they don't like negative political
ads, research by faculty members at the University of Georgia found
that not only are attack ads initially effective, but their impact
increases over time, perhaps because they produce an emotional
response. And positive ads used to counter them are not as
effective because they're ultimately less powerful than the
opponent's attack ad.

Weigh the Risks

When it comes to marketing products and services, comparative
advertising is happily tolerated, even enjoyed, by audiences-just
so long as it's dished up with a healthy dose of humor. Plus,
the claims must be true and documented. For example, attack ads
launched for underdog Miller Lite, which had half the sales volume
of Bud Light, turned around its decade-long sales decline by
focusing heavily on Miller Lite's lower carbohydrate content.
They also forced industry leader Budweiser into a defensive
posture.

Negative ads featuring direct comparisons can successfully
educate and motivate target audiences, such as the way TV spots for
Total brand cereal humorously demonstrate its benefits by showing
how many bowls of another brand you'd have to eat to equal the
nutrition in one bowl of Total. But before you undertake this type
of campaign, it pays to know its risks.

While attack ads cause audiences to experience negative
feelings about the company being attacked, negative impressions
also go up for the attacker. So while a two-company fight launched
by the underdog may prove successful, if there are multiple
companies vying for dominance, launching a negative campaign could
give lesser competitors an advantage and the opportunity to leap
ahead of you.

If you're the market leader, launching attack ads may
actually give your lesser-known opponent name recognition. When
No.2 soup brand Progresso went on the attack against No.1
Campbell's, the leader responded by placing a blue can
resembling Progresso's next to its own to describe the
differences-which some believe only served to help consumers
remember the challenger.

When making a direct comparison, the tone and execution of your
campaign must expertly sidestep any possibility of being considered
meanspirited or unlikable, to avoid having your campaign
backfire.

The High Road

A safer route is to skip the attack ads altogether and use
implied comparisons. Avis doesn't directly attack Hertz, they
simply "try harder." Wendy's legendary
"Where's the Beef?" campaign never directly named
McDonald's or Burger King but humorously implied that other
burgers were smaller. In response to Kmart's campaign exhorting
female customers to clip coupons, Wal-Mart adroitly ran spots
showing busy women who had no time to clip coupons enjoying the
convenience of low prices every day without them. No mudslinging
necessary-just build a campaign around the comparative benefits of
working with you, and your customers will make all the right
connections.

Kim T. Gordon

Kim Gordon is the owner of National Marketing Federation and is a multifaceted marketing expert, speaker, author and media spokesperson. Her latest book is Maximum Marketing, Minimum Dollars.